Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2021-03-11 CommentsComments received from the CRC Website Page 1 Comment 1 1 would like to see the Charter Review Committee take up the issue of WPD accountability at the local level. There are statistics from WPD records that suggest bias exists in the citations and arrests made in Watertown. The WPD has been approached by community members with reasonable proposals for increased community engagement and additional anti -bias training, only to reject these efforts. There are serious allegations of unprofessional behavior and culture within the department. It is unacceptable to many Watertown residents that the police are accountable to one man alone, the Town Manager. The community is wanting greater accountability, appropriate and relevant transparency, and a reimagined budget for the police. There are many communities around the country that have acted through their charters to create closer oversight of local police departments. Response: Comment 2 1 present these thoughts/suggestions/comments in no particular order. Unfortunately, 1 have not grouped them chronologically or by subject. 1. After we approve the revised charter, if we keep the Town Manager as an appointed (unelected) position, we need to increase the transparency and public input into the specifics of their job description and performance standards, and the evaluations of their performance. One way to address this would be to do the TM's evaluations in open meetings of the TC, not in executive session, even if the TC needs to use executive session to discuss salary specifics for the TM. 2. The Town Council President position, as the current charter defines it, is effectively a very weak "shadow" mayor that sort of runs interference between the public, the Town Council, the School Committee, and the Town Manager. 3. It is not reasonable to expect the Town Council President to do all the things people are asking of them when it is only a part time position. This leads me to think we would be better served by a full-time person in that role = a mayor. 4. Probably after we settle the Mayor/TM debate, we also need to address the makeup of our legislative body, the Town Council. We should discuss the ratio of representative councilors to at -large councilors, and the boundaries/size of the Town Council Districts. 5. Right now, our 4 at -large Town Councilors all live in the same general section of Watertown. We should consider the extra weight this gives to those districts and the demographics in those neighborhoods. 6. We should change the composition of future Charter Review Commissions. This CRC should address who chooses the members and what are the qualifications for Comments received from the CRC Website Page 2 membership on future CRC's. In future, there should be at least 50% public representation. Probably more efficient not to have every TC on future CRC's. How will the "public" members of them be chosen? 7. More members of the CRC should have more input into the CRC meetings agendas. 8. If we keep an appointed TM, we should include requirements for them to interact with the public more often in their job description and then evaluate their performance of those expectations. Public forums at certain intervals. Answer correspondence and phone calls in certain timeframes? Involvement in non -business hours civic events, other than meetings. 9. 1 think the Town Council President has a conflict of interest in setting the agendas for, and running the meetings of, the CRC at which the future of a form of government to which they are central is being debated. 10. What is the current schedule for evaluating the TM's performance and renewing their contract vis a vis the schedule for completing and voting on this charter review? We don't want to be cornered on our choice of type of government by the existence of a contract for the TM that take us past the implementation date of the new charter. Response: Comment 3 I liked the macro review of the charter process since it uncovered some finer points. One theme that came up from certain questions and comments is that of equity, and how it still is not garnering the attention it so needs. 1. The at -large vs. district representation discussion made me realize that the council's composition could be an easy lever for more equitable representation. 2. The questions around COLA language, salary increases and health insurance brought this question to mind - are there members of the council who derived a good portion of their income/benefits from this position? Maybe this needs a deeper dive. 3. The question about hiring a Diversity Officer had been asked and has been previously. Again, it is something that warrants serious consideration. There has not been a pro/con discussion about this. 4. The idea about having qualifications or obtaining qualifications to hold town council office can hinder more equitable representation. Even though it may not be the intent, this suppresses participation as it may discourage persons without college degrees or persons with disabilities from even entertaining the idea of running for office. Response: Comments received from the CRC Website Page 3 Comment 4 This set of comments about the 2/16 Charter Review Meeting is a criticism. I had no issue with the macro review as it led to some great discussions and thoughts to consider. 1 had no issue with the request to put comments in the Q&A instead of the Chat as a lot of Zoom calls do something similar; it's just a facilitation mechanism. The straw poll motion at the end of the meeting, however, was an issue because it was political gameplay. 1 understand motions can be made by anyone at any time, and that there's process such as seconding the motion and having discussion before a roll call is taken because we need to maintain order. However, this episode was an unmitigated mess. The timing of the motion caused people to context switch, whether that was the intent or not. It became a disorientating tactic that made me feel as if we were being manipulated. One minute, 1 am thinking "how can we keep current government form by changing representation composition or what kinds of policy -making decisions should come under the legislative body, and how does it affect other offices or committees in town?" The next minute, 1 am asking, "why is this motion being made? It is to get people to tip their hands or apply pressure?" With the exception of one vote, 1 was able to correctly guess all the votes, which was a disappointment, and the poll did little to provide guidance to Mike. While 1 appreciate the heads up of this being a motion at every meeting, it now adds a gaming element to the process. Do committee members need to remember to quickly and loudly ask for discussion before the process becomes muddled? 1 have to wonder if this is what occurs at every town council meeting. I hope not because it would prevent any real examination of the issues or movement forward. It can also be a motivating factor behind the desire for a mayor and weak council. Response: Comment 5 Can the charter include a responsibility of Town Council to require the Town Manager to report to TC annually on the retention rate of employees of color per department? Response: Comment 6 1. Do we currently have a 360 -degree peer review of our Town Manager and Department heads? If not, this is a problem which should be fixed as soon as possible (and done by a 3rd party, reviewed by Town Manager and Town Council). 2. If we had a mayor, would we have a 360 -peer review for our Town Manager and Department heads given the Mayor is directly accountable via the people's vote, we would want some semblance of professionalism and accountability within our Town Comments received from the CRC Website Page 4 Government that are not voted in (again this may help along with good management overall). 3. Why did our Town Council have a straw vote? This seems 100% not on the up and up as it then may influence people on the board down the road. This has drawn a dark shadow on the town council and was done without the entire town's well-being in mind. 4. Our current Town manager has shown he is A+ for fiscal management and then "D" on all other departments (don't take my word for it, review the 360 input...or not if there isn't any, talk to the workers). The residents and the workers deserve well managed professional leadership at Town Hall. In order to have this we need a change from the status quo. The people that work for the town and the residents deserve better and the current system is failing them. Response: Comment 7 Salary should be reviewed as part of the review; we have some of the most well -paid civil servants in the Commonwealth and they are nominally responsive to citizen concerns. Response: Comment 8 Will these questions be posted on a website for all to read/responses or do they go into the VOID? (will we get a response or get a response on website? Please respond to my email to let me know one way or the other. Response: Comment 9 1 have shared this with the CRC members. I would appreciate this being shared with the Collins Center experts as well. Thank you. March 2, 2021 To CRC Committee members: 1 am writing as an interested resident to share some comments on the Charter Review process. 1 strongly believe that this review is an important opportunity for extensive public input, and is a chance for Watertown to improve its public engagement, whatever the final decisions are about changes to our charter. The issues involved in the Charter Review are complex, and require a good understanding of how our government works in practice (as well as in theory) for residents to provide useful input. While 1 understand the desire to reach a decision early on about the meta -question (Manager vs Mayor), 1 myself find it impossible to have an informed opinion about that question without Comments received from the CRC Website Page 5 substantially more discussion and education about the workings of our government. 1 strongly urge the CRC and its Communications Subcommittee to explore ways to sponsor more open and robust debate and education opportunities about a number of questions, before expecting informed input by most residents on that question. This could take the form of panel discussions and debates — perhaps with the help of the library — with extensive opportunities for the public to ask questions and make arguments. I know this can be difficult, given time pressures, Committee members' workloads, and open meeting rules. Perhaps education sessions conducted by the Collins Center, without input from Committee members (to avoid deliberations) but recording so that Committee members and residents could view after the fact. With both verbal questions and chat content preserved. Such events would give less constrained opportunities for public input, and might also reveal factual misunderstandings or divergent assessments about how the government currently works that shape people's views about desirable charter changes. Clarifying facts and sharing assessments should be done before people are expected to make decisions about what changes are needed. In addition, 1 think it's important to start with a debate about what is and is not working well in Watertown now, followed by an analysis about what structural factors or informal practices contribute to the successes and failures. Finally, 1 urge the Committee to make available to the public all the information that the Committee is discussing before the meetings, to give time for people to be informed listeners, and to share information on the results of the CRC poll and other relevant material. Much progress has already been made in sharing useful information — from the Collins Center and elsewhere — on the Committee website, which is very encouraging. Thank you. 1 will submit further comments shortly about specific topics I would welcome more education and discussion on, regarding how the government currently works. Thank you for considering my comments. And thank you for the time and energy the Committee is putting into this important effort. Response: